Do Battleships have a futue?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Plato, the Japanese modified a couple of BB's in WW2 replacing one end of the ships armament with a shorter flight deck. Strange looking things, but I guess they worked...

If I remember my history correctly, both the Germans and the Japanese changed production of battleships to carriers after the hulls were complete

[Berzerker]

these were BB's with normal turrets on one end and a deck on the other.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by yavoon
jack sorry but ur just wrong. and probably unintelligent too

then explain to me how I am wrong then.

[yavoon]

battleships are far cheaper than ne carrier battle group(by powers of 10). battleships can provide sustained mobile artillery bombardment up to 20 miles in shore, at very low cost.

which is really their new role, the ones we didn't decommision were very effective in vietnam and were quite feared weapons.

if you had all the money in the world sure you could launch a missile at everything. or risk a 20 million dollar plane flying over newhere. but a battleship is simply a very practical tool of the US military similar to the b 52.

that when we have superiority it provides us a great tool to "pound" the enemy with.

[Jack_www]

Well the turing point for battleships and carriers came with the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese proved that carriers could be very effective. Basiclly all through out WWII carriers begain to get more improtance, and their were times were battles between battleship almost begun, but did not really.

[yavoon]

nice random post jack. cuz of course everyone is trying to say that battleships are still used for sea superiority.

or wait, maybe no1 was saying that and u just decided to say something random.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by yavoon
battleships are far cheaper than ne carrier battle group(by powers of 10). battleships can provide sustained mobile artillery bombardment up to 20 miles in shore, at very low cost.

which is really their new role, the ones we didn't decommision were very effective in vietnam and were quite feared weapons.

if you had all the money in the world sure you could launch a missile at everything. or risk a 20 million dollar plane flying over newhere. but a battleship is simply a very practical tool of the US military similar to the b 52.

that when we have superiority it provides us a great tool to "pound" the enemy with.

curise missles and fighter bombers can do this much better then an battle ship at far great distances. Carrier has much more firepower then a battleship.

[Jack_www]

Dont get me wrong I do like Battleships yavoon, and used to think that they were the best ship out their, but the more I look at carriers the more I was convinced that carriers are way better.

[yavoon]

yes but at many fold the cost. ur gna fire a 1.4 million dollar tamahawk when u can bombard ppl for god knows how long for the same cost?

battleships have their place, and are of use. just cuz something like the carrier battlegroup that costs such a ridiculous amt of money that only america has any(france's mini carrier dont count). is hardly an indicator that the battleship has become useless.

[yavoon]

seriously jack, between ur grammar and ur completely offtopic arguing. I dont think ur a real person.

[Spiffor]

Yavoon :
Your argument might look more solid if you wrote "you" instead of "u". Especially the bit about the grammar

[yavoon]

why do u not understand shorthand? I wasn't saying that having bad grammar makes ur argument weaker(on the internet).

I said that his grammar combined w/ his offtopic arguing made me think he wasn't real.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by yavoon
yes but at many fold the cost. ur gna fire a 1.4 million dollar tamahawk when u can bombard ppl for god knows how long for the same cost?

Because your big ship will get sunk. Where does that leave you then?

[yavoon]

there are many many situations where we could use battleships w/o fear of them being sunk.

[Spiffor]

In what situations except colonial warfare ?